Sec. 172. General Rule As To Failure Of Customer (P. 181)

It is even intimated that where a purchaser refuses to complete his contract, and the vendor does not compel the performance of the contract, the broker can sue the purchaser to compel performance, on the theory that an agent having an interest in the contract such as his commissions, can sue to compel performance.1

Add to footnote 2 (p. 182):

Croak v. Trentman, 150 Pac. (Okla.) 1088 (1915).

"When a broker, as a part of his employment, assumes to execute for his principal an executory contract of sale or exchange he does not become entitled to his commissions unless the other contracting party is able to perform the contract on his part." 2

Add to footnote 3:

Bird v. Rowell, 180 Mo. App. 421; 167 S. W. 1172.

Sec. 173. Abandonment Of Broker By Customer (P. 182)

Add to footnote 6:

Lord v. U. S. Transportation Co., 143 App. Div. 437, 456; 128 N. Y. Suppl. 451 (1911).

Sec. 174. Misrepresentations By Vendor (P. 183)

Where in an action by real estate brokers to recover commissions under an employment to procure a purchaser for the defendant's building, the defendant furnished to the plaintiffs a statement as to the number of apartments in the building to be sold and the sum for which they were separately rented, to be used in procuring a purchaser; and the plaintiffs procured persons to sign a contract to purchase in reliance upon such statement, and they refused to complete the purchase because of misrepresentations in the statement, a judgment for the plaintiffs should be affirmed.3

It is the broker's "duty to inquire as to terms of sale and as to matters affecting the general character of the property. There is no duty on the part of a real estate owner to inform a broker of encroachments unless he is asked about them. It is not misrepresentation, either wilful or inadvertent, for him to remain mute, when he is not asked, and when he is under no duty to volunteer or speak."-4

1 Cordozo v. Middle Atl. I. Co., (Va. App.) 80 S. E. 80 (1914).

2 Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1; 29 N. E. 1091; 28 Am. St. Rep. 542 (1892). See also Van Varick v. Suburban Invest. Co., 76 Misc. 593; 135 N. Y. Suppl. 299 (1912). 3 Schweid v. Storandt, 157 App. Div. 855; 143 N. Y. Suppl. 161 (1913).

Add to footnote 7:

Hutchinson v. Plant, 218 Mass. 148; 105 N. E. 1017 (1914).

4Wiggin v. Estate of Coddington, 83 Misc. 439, 441; 145 N. Y. Suppl. 3 (1913).